New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

As reported by nj.com, Governor Chris Christie says contract talks with New Jersey’s largest public worker union are continuing at a slow pace. Christie says the administration has offered proposals on wages and non-economic issues to the Communications Workers of America. However, he does not expect an agreement within the next two weeks.

The contract for 40,000 state CWA employees expired June 30. Hetty Rosenstein, the union’s state director, says the two sides have not met in several weeks and no meetings are scheduled. But, she says the two sides have not reached an impasse and bargaining will continue.

An agreement between Christie and the Legislature to overhaul public worker pensions and health benefits took those issues off the table. Three Democrat union members who approved the deal were denied AFL-CIO candidate endorsements last week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, Governor Chris Christie began bargaining over health benefits for state employees this week, according to a memo sent out to members of the Communications Workers of America obtained by the Star-Ledger.

Christie has been adamant for months that he would obtain changes to employee health benefits through legislation. The new offer, similar to the one he publicly proposed that would require state employees to pay 30 percent of the cost of the insurance premium, came when his staff sat down to negotiate with the CWA, the largest public employee union, on Thursday, according to the memo. The new offer also would allow the state to change the cost of employee co-pays for the life of the four-year contract.   

The CWA has filed a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Commission alleging violations of state employment law when Christie refused to negotiate over health benefits. That complaint is still pending.

“This kind of proposal is regressive and hurts lower paid workers and families,” the memo states. “However, we will continue to bargain health care according to our principles of affordability and maintaining quality care. Now that there is finally a proposal from the state, we will press for real bargaining to take place.”

Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said they continue to push for legislation to change health benefits. “In keeping with the ongoing collective bargaining process, the Administration presented its proposals on economic issues that are subject to negotiation,” Roberts said in an email. “Gov. Christie’s position is clear on the issue of health benefits reform-bipartisan legislation to accomplish comprehensive changes and achieve savings for taxpayers is the only way real reform of the system will happen. We will continue to work with the Legislature to that effect.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by app.com, New Jersey’s largest state worker union filed an unfair practice charge against Governor Chris Christie’s administration, saying the administration has so far refused to negotiate health care costs. 

The Communication Workers of America filed the charge with the state Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”) on May 12, 2011. Union leader Hetty Rosenstein said the union has met six times with the Governor’s staff, but the administration will not respond to CWA’s proposal on health care benefits.

The Republican Governor has made a national name for his fights with union leaders, especially teachers. He has said he wants state workers to pay a greater share of their health care costs and wants to achieve those changes through legislation rather than collective bargaining, while at the same time insisting he “loves collective bargaining.”

“When is Governor I-love-collective-bargaining going to negotiate?” Rosenstein said. Christie Spokesman Kevin Roberts said negotiations are still in the early stages and are ongoing.

The CWA is pushing to reform benefits through collective bargaining rather than legislation and has also put forward a plan. It would have workers continue to pay 1.5 percent of their salary and 8.5 percent of their premium by the fourth and final year of a new contract. It says that would save the state more than $200 million.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by the New York Times, On Thursday, March 31, 2011, the State of Ohio passed a law that is more restrictive on the collective bargaining rights of Public Safety Officers than the law that was passed in Wisconsin several weeks ago.  

While both laws severely limit public employees’ ability to bargain collectively — they both prohibit any bargaining over health coverage and pensions — the Ohio law largely eliminates bargaining for the police and firefighters whereas Wisconsin’s law leaves those two groups’ bargaining rights untouched. Ohio’s law also gives city councils and school boards a free hand to unilaterally impose their side’s final contract offer when management and a union fail to reach a settlement.  Implementation of a final offer by management is permitted in private sector collective bargaining but was previously not permitted in the public sector.

Notwithstanding the differences in legislation, the push by those states’ Republican governors and Republican-dominated legislatures points to a pendulum swing away from what many unions and Democrats see as a fundamental right for public employees: the right to bargain over wages and benefits.

While New Jersey's Governor, Chris Christie, has stated that he does not have any intentions on abolishing Public Safety Officers' rights to collectively bargain, he has already taken steps to eliminate premium cost sharing of health care benefits as a subject that is mandatorily negotiable.  Furthermore, he has also stated that he is looking forward to engaging in "adversarial" negotiations with public employee labor unions as contracts are now expiring.

To read the entire New York Times article regarding the Ohio law, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by app.com, the union that represents some 35,000 state and local government workers is offering to make changes in New Jersey’s health insurance system that would, as one official promised, save “tens of millions of dollars.” The proposal by the Communication Workers of America came as union leaders and negotiators for Governor Chris Christie’s administration met for the first time.

Paul Alexander, president of the CWA Local 1038, said the package was drawn from reforms being instituted across the United States and from recommendations contained in a report from Harvard University. “It’s a very, very comprehensive plan,” Alexander said. “These are things being done in other areas, but for New Jersey, it may be unique. (Rising health costs) are not just a New Jersey problem, it’s a national problem.”

Alexander and CWA officials declined to detail the proposal. However, a letter sent to members and posted on a CWA website said the offer was an effort at “containing and sharing premium costs.”  The proposal also would expand the use of generic drugs and mail-order prescription services, the union letter said. The proposal would save the State about one-fifth of its premium costs the CWA claimed.

A Christie spokesman declined to comment. Christie, a Republican who frequently criticizes public sector unions, has said in recent weeks that he is looking forward to negotiating over contracts that are set to begin July 1. “It should be an adversarial situation,” Christie said on a televised interview last month. “Somebody should be representing the taxpayers.”

However, with the State facing rising health costs for current workers, a nearly $37 billion long term unfunded liability in the State portion of the pension system and another $56 billion for retiree health costs, Christie is pushing for system-wide changes through legislation. To this end, Christie has called for all state and local workers enrolled in the State’s health benefits plan to pay 30 percent of the premium.

A counter proposal by Democratic State Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney also would require premium payments by employees up to 30 percent, but that would only be for employees making more than $100,000 a year and seven years after their current contract ends.   An employee paid $60,000, close to the state average, would pay 7 percent of the premium at first, rising to 19 percent seven years later. That final figure would work out to $3,610 a year for family coverage in 2017.

Unions, however, want those health coverage changes to be adopted only through negotiation and not through state law, as proposed by Christie and Sweeney. Several hundred retired and current government workers jammed the hallways of the Statehouse as unions tried to meet with lawmakers and urge them not to pass the health care changes. Unions are arguing that the health care proposals amount to an attack on collective bargaining.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by trentonian.com, New Jersey’s state government unions are up against more than a combative Governor Chris Christie going into contract negotiations. They are up against numbers regarding their salary, which were recently released and could complicate their efforts to rally public opinion to their side.

More than 17,000 union represented state employees have salaries of $75,000 or higher. They account for a record 75 percent of total employees in this pay range, including management and patronage employees. Union represented employees now hold 43 percent of jobs paying $100,000 or more, also a record proportion. These Civil Service figures are as of January 1, 2010.

The two biggest of a dozen state employee unions are the Communications Workers of America, representing about 37,000 employees, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”), bargaining for about 9,900 state workers. Governor Christie has declared himself ready, even eager, to do some hard-nosed negotiations. He served notice at a recent town meeting that unions should not expect him to join them in “holding hands” around the bargaining table and singing “Kumbaya.”

Union representatives have no such expectations. “We’re aware of the [fiscal] situation and public mood,” said one AFSCME member, not authorized to speak for the union and commenting anonymously. “We’re not looking for a sweetheart contract or expecting one. We’re looking for a fair contract, one that doesn’t shift all the burden onto us.”

CWA says it has made concessions previously, contrary to the impression given by the blustery Christie. These concessions included a deferral of a scheduled raise in 2009, the acceptance of a pay cut in the form of uncompensated furlough days, and an agreement to take on a bigger employee share of pension and medical-coverage costs. 

New Jersey’s contract talks open at a time when states face big annual budget shortfalls and massive unfunded long-term liabilities in promised pension and health benefits. New Jersey liabilities by one official calculation surpass $120 billion, four times the annual state budget. Other calculations set the sum even higher.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a Republican, has positioned himself in the center of America’s public sector labor battle zone. He’s proposing to sharply curtail bargaining parameters, including taking benefits off the table. He also proposed to stop payroll deductions for union dues, forcing the unions to collect their own dues, a potentially crippling blow to them financially. Christie has stopped short of going that far. But, he has drawn the national limelight, alongside Walker, with his union-taunting remarks and stated willingness to go to the mat.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, with contracts for 49,000 state workers due to expire this June, Governor Chris Christie has publicly proclaimed he wants no pay raises and expects state workers to fork over much more for health and pension benefits. Union leaders say they have had no meetings with the governor’s office and worry this does not bode well for getting a deal before the current contracts are up.

At stake in this year’s talks are two of Christie’s signature issues: health and pension reform for state employees. Christie has declared there will be no pay increases for state workers, recently making the commitment in an interview with Fox News. He also has made clear his expectations for cuts in employee benefits: increase pension contributions for all employees to 8.5 percent of salary, require state workers to pay 30 percent of their health care premiums, raise the retirement age, and eliminate cost of living adjustments for pension recipients.

David Cohen, head of employee relations, will negotiate for the governor’s office, Christie said. “If and when he needs me to come in from the bullpen to help, I’m prepared to do it,” Christie said. Union leaders say they were told no meetings would be scheduled until after the governor’s budget presentation on February 22. In past contract negotiations, discussions have begun the fall before.

The governor’s office has gotten tough in negotiations with toll collectors who officially bargain with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. The talks began in anticipation of a move by Christie’s office to privatize the operations and eliminate publicly funded collectors. Franceline Ehret, head of the toll collectors union, said the talks have been unlike any in the 10 years she had headed the group. She said in the past, the Turnpike Authority was empowered to make decisions about contracts, but this year all decisions are being routed through Christie’s office. She said the administration wants $12 million to $14 million in concessions, not including health and pension benefits changes.   

If the administration and the state workers unions cannot reach an agreement in June, the employees are barred from striking, but could use tactics to slow work productivity. The Governor, as employer, could initiate punishment if rules are not followed. Christie could opt to keep benefits out of the collective bargaining process and instead change the health benefits and pensions through legislation. That’s an option he said he would consider, but stressed his administration will bargain in good faith.

As one can expect, the upcoming contract negotiations with the Christie administration will have an enormous impact on all New Jersey public employees, to include public safety officers, and their successor collective bargaining agreements. Please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding the negotiations as they become available.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by app.com on February 1, 2011, two major public safety unions opposed new arbitration caps on the raises that can be given to their members, but union representatives will play a key role in deciding whether those caps, designed to give taxpayers a break from skyrocketing public worker salaries, remain in effect beyond 2014.

Senate President Stephen Sweeney appointed two union officials to the panel that will study the effect of the cap and whether it should remain in effect after 2014. The two are Ronald Bakley of Erial, a retired police officer who is director of the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police labor council, and William Lavin of Woodbridge, president of the New Jersey Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association. Both individuals have said the arbitration changes signed by Governor Christie in December limiting raises that can be awarded by arbitrators at 2 percent a year were not necessary.

Lavin said he wants to make sure the task force considers his union’s concerns about timeliness, the selection of arbitrators and the accuracy of the depiction of raises being received by public safety employees. “The fair interpretation of those numbers is critical to us,” Lavin said. Bakley said he is not concerned about specifically what the panel, which has not yet organized, intends to accomplish. He said the law will get arbitrators to decide cases faster, because their pay is capped at $7,500 and they $1,000 per day fines if they take more than 45 days. But he predicted other impacts of the law would not be as drastic because it keeps conventional arbitration on the books.

The Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Impact Task Force was established as part of the arbitration reform. It is to study the impact of the award cap on property taxes, union contracts, municipal services, and expenses and changes in crime rates, response time and police and fire staffing. The task force will consist of eight members. The four being appointed by Governor Christie and the two being named by Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver have not yet been identified.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com on January 27, 2011, the Jersey City Police Union has voted to approve the police contract for its officers. The vote tally for the approval was 341 for and 164 against according to city officials. There are 690 members of the union and, as such, 185 members did not cast a vote.

The Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Association approved a new deal in a vote that took place from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on January 26, 201. The ratification averted the scheduled layoff of 82 officers. Had the layoffs went through, it would have cut the size of the police force by 10 percent from its current 830 members.   

The agreement still needs to be approved by the City Council, which is expected. Mayor Jeremiah Healy said, “We also want to thank the union leadership for their efforts in these long and sometimes difficult negotiations and we also want to thank the men and women of the Jersey City Police Department for not only supporting this agreement, but for the important work they do every day to keep our city safe.”

The terms of the agreement and the vote tally were not immediately available. Sources have told The Jersey Journal that the police union officials agreed to a one-week pay lag for the officers, which will save the city nearly $4 million this year. The officers would receive the one-week pay when they retire. In return for the concession, the officers gained two comp days this year, will receive an extra day’s pay when they retire, and the city agreed not to take away the officers’ $1300 a year uniform allowance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 20, 2010, a New Jersey judge ruled that a new law requiring public employees to pay at least 1.5 percent of their salaries toward health insurance can go into effect on May 21, 2010.

As reported in the Asbury Park Press, unions for police and firefighters asked the Superior Court for a temporary restraining order that would have kept the law from taking effect in certain situations. The request was part of a larger lawsuit that seeks to block the new law, which is part of the State’s efforts to hold down costs by being tougher on public employees and their unions, including those working for local government.

The new law, championed by Governor Chris Christie, requires the contributions of employees once their current collective bargaining agreements expire. Many public employees already contribute at least 1.5 percent of their salaries to health coverage. Other locals have chosen smaller pay raises to keep free health care, or have switched to inferior insurance coverage to keep it free. 

The unions’ main contention was that the amount employees pay for their health insurance should be worked out in contract negotiations, not imposed by the State. According to the judge, “not every term and condition on which a collective bargaining unit would want to negotiate is fair play.” The judge also rejected the unions’ arguments that the law amounts to an unfair tax on the State’s roughly 400,000 public employees or that the law is vague.

The unions will get another chance to make their case in court later. While the unions ultimately hope to stop the law from being enforced entirely, the main concern in this case was narrow. Police and firefighters are prohibited by state law from going on strike. When their contract negotiations reach an impasse, they go to a lengthy arbitration process. In essence, the unions argued the 1.5 percent payment requirement should not apply to the 215 local unions currently in the arbitration process.

Please continue to check this blog periodically for updates regarding this litigation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday, February 25, 2010, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce announced bipartisan Assembly legislation to reform public worker pensions and health benefits has been introduced.

They also said additional legislation to target pension and benefit reforms at state authorities and agencies and to close a loophole that allows public employees to collect a full pension while collecting an additional public salary are being finalized and will soon also be introduced.

Oliver and DeCroce sponsored the bills introduced, but additional sponsors will soon be added. The following bills were introduced:

A2461, which would:

• Limit pension system enrollment to new full-time employees who work at least 35 hours per week for the State or 32 hours for local government and schools;
• Base pensions for new police and firefighters on the three highest salary years rather than the highest single year;
• Impose a pensionable salary cap for new employees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System and the State Police Retirement System; and
• Repeal 2003 legislation that allowed a police or firefighter to retire at any age with 25 years of service credit on a special retirement allowance of 70 percent of final compensation.

A2460, which would:

• Require all public employees to pay at least 1.5 percent of their salary toward health benefits after the expiration of a current contract;
• Require new state workers to work at least 35 per hours per week to qualify for health benefits; and
• Require all newly-hired employees to pay at least 1.5 percent of their base pension toward health benefits upon retirement.

A2459, which would:

• Eliminate the sick leave injury program; and

ACR115, which would:

• Ask voters during a November election to amend the State Constitution to eventually require the State to pay the full amount of its required pension fund contribution.

This legislation serves as a companion to the legislation that was recently introduced in the State Senate. As such, please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding the same as it has tremendous implications for New Jersey Public Safety Officers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employees in New Jersey’s largest state-worker union overwhelmingly ratified a revised contract agreement on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 that defers a raise and trades furloughs this year for future vacation days. With a little over 13,000 votes cast online or by phone by the deadline, the margin was 69 percent to 31 percent according to the Communication Workers of America. All four bargaining units, those represented clerical workers, professionals and two tiers of supervisors, voted for the revised deal, which bars layoffs until 2011. 

Workers in the CWA, which covers about half the state’s workforce, agreed to defer a 3.5 percent raise that was due July 1, 2009 by 18 months; they will get two 3.5 percent raises in fiscal 2011. Workers also agreed to nine furlough days over the coming year, on top of one taken in May. In exchange, they receive seven days off from work they can take starting in July 2010 or cash out when they leave state employment, at their pay rate at that time. 

The State agreed not to layoff any workers until January 2011 or add more unpaid furloughs before July 2011. If the State lays off any worker before January 2011, not counting any fired for disciplinary reasons or for cause, all state workers immediately get the deferred 3.5 percent raise and no further furloughs are required.

Workers due to receive increment raised in fiscal 2010 based on their years of service will get those increases. The nine unpaid furlough days include the day after Thanksgiving this year and Lincoln’s Birthday in 2010. The other seven dates will be worked out by workers and their supervisors and must be taken by the end of June 2010.

Republicans, who are hopeful that Governor Corzine will be replaced in this fall’s election, said the agreement ties the hands of the next governor to deal with next year’s multi-billion dollar deficit. “The governor did not need to negotiate these costly, election-year concessions. The courts had upheld his right to furlough workers as he originally proposed. The governor traded a plan that would have saved money during a recession for one that may very well slow the state’s recovery,” said Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean, Jr., R-Union.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 3, 2009, the State of New Jersey’s largest public employee union indicated it would accept a wage freeze and unpaid furlough days to help reduce spending under a tentative deal according to Governor Jon Corzine.

Corzine called the agreement with the Communication Workers of America “very important for our budget to make sure that we get something that is a very substantial giveback.” According to Corzine, negotiations are continuing with other unions along with CWA.

Corzine stated, “There is a tentative agreement on wage givebacks and furloughs that has yet more details to be ironed out, and that has to be appropriately negotiated with other unions. I expect there will be an agreement on the terms that are negotiated at the collective bargaining table, not just with CWA but with all of the various parties that are involved.”

Although details of the deal were not provided, senior Democratic officials told the Star Ledger the pact would include ten (10) furlough days in the budget year starting July 1, along with a wage freeze and some “bankable” paid personal days that workers could take in the future.

Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee char Barbara Buono said the tentative agreement, if approved by other unions, would lead to at least $300 million in savings for the $28.6 billion budget proposed for the new fiscal year. 

Corzine imposed two furlough days before the current budget year ends June 30 and was seeking 12 more days in the new budget. Union members have protested the furloughs and criticized the Governor. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A very interesting article and interview most recently appeared in the New York Times regarding police salaries, pay raises, furloughs, and lay offs in the Township of East Brunswick.  The article has relevance to the entire state of the economy in New Jersey.  We wanted to share this article with you as it is pertinent to what many departments are going through during this difficult period of securing a raise in wages and benefits.  The article can be found in its entirety at the link listed below.

New York Times Article

Best --Frank M. Crivelli, Esq.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jerry DeMarco, a reporter with the website www.examiner.com has reported that significantly more police unions around the state are turning towards interest arbitration as a means to settle their contract due to the hard line stance that many municipalities and county governments have taken during negotiations.

DeMarco reported that the average salary increase for arbitration awards dipped slightly last year, to 3.73 percent from 3.77 percent, according to the New Jersey Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC). Furthermore, salary increases from voluntary settlements averaged 3.92 percent, down from 3.97 percent in 2007. PERC records show that in Northern New Jersey, nearly a half-dozen awards made by arbitrators this year average 3.92 a year in their overall impact on police salaries over the life of the contracts.

The article further reports that a long-running contract dispute in Englewood, New Jersey, finally ended in December, with police getting a 4% hike for 2007 through 2009, and a 3.8% increase for 2010. Fort Lee police, similarly, got 4%for 2007 and 2008 and 3.5%for 2009 and 2010.  North Arlington police, who filed for arbitration nearly a year ago, were awarded 15.25%over four years in September, 2008.

Interest arbitration is always a viable option for dispute resolution when public safety unions reach an impasse with their governmental employers. The Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Reform Act is the statute that governs interest arbitration within the state of New Jersey; and should a public safety collective bargaining unit make the decision that contract negotiations have reached an impasse, this act will be the controlling piece of legislation in the arbitration process. 

Prior to filing for interest arbitration, it is advisable that the union’s executive board familiarize themselves with the Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Reform Act, and the criteria that is utilized by arbitrators in issuing an award. Furthermore, the collective bargaining unit should ensure that they do not walk into the arbitration process alone. It is imperative that they consult with and hire competent counsel prior to the initiation of the petition for interest arbitration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 30, 2008, The Press of Atlantic City reported that new Ocean City, New Jersey Police Officers will make approximately $5,000 less under the contract that was recently approved by the PBA and city council. The contract with the Policemen's Benevolent Association Local 61 also reflected a move to the state health-insurance system from the city’s own health system. The city has cited double digit increases in premium costs as the reason for moving from its own plan to the State Health Benefits Program. The city further stated that it plans to move all municipal employees to the state benefits program as soon as practicable. 

The contract also reflected a 3.5 percent increase in salary for 2008, a 3.85 percent increase in salary for 2009, a 3.9 percent increase in salary for 2010 and a 3.8 percent increase in salary for 2011.

However where the contract strayed from the traditional path was the establishment of a two-tier pay system reflecting a cut in salary for new hires from $42,200 to $37,500. The contract also changed a longevity payment from a range of 0 to 12 percent to a flat dollar bonus based on years of service.

Presently contract negotiations with the city fire union have reached an impasse and are in binding interest arbitration.

We should take a few teaching points away from the settlement of this particular contract. 

• First, I believe we will see a greater trend developing where municipalities will continue to move away from their own health plan system and opt into the State Health Benefit Program as a cost saving measure. 

• Second, in today’s economy and with the poor self inflicted financial condition of the state of New Jersey, municipal aide is being cut which means less money for pay raises and benefits. The days of seeing 4% increases will be harder to come by in the immediate future. Furthermore, raises for 2008 will probably be less than the years that follow. 

• Finally, it is interesting that the PBA agreed to lower the starting salary of new officers. While there may be a multitude of economic reasons for this decision, we should not speculate why this concession was made without understanding the dynamics of the department’s man power, Table of Organization, and the benefits conferred upon the members for making the concession.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Currently, many labor organizations representing public employees are negotiating collective bargaining agreements with the State of New Jersey. One of the most significant issues surrounding these negotiations involves the healthcare/benefit program provided by the State of New Jersey to its employees. Specifically, the State’s proposal regarding the dollar amount of employee contributions to the healthcare plan provided by the State, also known as premium sharing, has become vigorously contested by many labor organizations. As such, the State Health Benefits Program has again risen to the forefront of labor law consciousness.

The operation of the State Health Benefits Program (hereinafter referred to as “the Program”) is governed by the New Jersey State Health Benefits Program Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.25 to -17.45. The goal of the Act is to provide comprehensive health benefits for eligible public employees and their families at “tolerable” cost. In essence, it establishes a plan for state funding and private administration of a health benefits program which will protect public employees from catastrophic health expenses. In addition, it encourages public employees to rely on the Program instead of seeking protection in the commercial insurance market. Heaton v. State Health Benefits Commission, 264 N.J. Super. 141, 151 (App. Div. 1993).   

The Act also spawned the State Health Benefits Commission (hereinafter referred to as “SHBC”). The SHBC is entrusted to establish the Program by negotiating and purchasing medical, surgical, hospital, and major medical benefits for participating public employees and their families, “in the best interests of the State and its employees” as well as retaining exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputed matters under the plan. N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.27 to -17.28. The SHBC is entitled to establish rules and regulations as deemed reasonable and necessary for the administration of the Act. See N.J.A.C. 17:9-1.1 to -7.4. The Act also states that the SHBC may set forth limitations and exclusions in coverage as it finds necessary to administer the SHBP.

In undertaking a very consequential role in the financial security of public employees and their families, the State has the duty and responsibility to bargain fairly with them. Hidden or unfair reservations in insurance policies are ignored because they do not reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties. Voorhees v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 128 N.J. 165, 175 (1992); Sparks v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 100 N.J. 325, 336 (1985). Because of the significance of health insurance to public employees and their families, and the Legislature’s undertaking to furnish insurance and determine its scope, one of the goals of the Legislature must have been to assure the fair and even-handed application of the Program provisions. Inevitably, the issue of premium sharing and its potential ramifications will certainly be followed by many public employees and labor organizations throughout the negotiation process to determine whether it is violative of the Program’s policies. 

Presently the state has proposed that all state civilian employees and law enforcement personnel contribute 1.5% of their salary towards health insurance. Certain state public employee labor unions and law enforcement labor unions have agreed to premium share at the 1.5% rate. However certain attorneys practicing labor law believe that there are constitutional issues with percentage premium sharing. We will follow this issue as it winds its way through interest arbitration and possibly the courts of New Jersey.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 11, 2008, the New Jersey Law Enforcement Supervisors Association (“NJLESA”) and New Jersey Law Enforcement Commanding Officers Association (“NJLECOA”), jointly filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County against the State of New Jersey challenging the viability of N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.13, the provisions of New Jersey law providing convention leave for State employees.

It is alleged that on or around July 15, 2008, NJLESA, the exclusive representative of those employees in the primary level supervisory law enforcement unit, and NJLECOA, the exclusive representative of superior officers and other command law enforcement personnel holding the rank of Captain or its equivalency in classified career service, requested a leave of absence with pay for certain union officials and duly authorized delegates within their organizations to attend a state convention jointly hosted by NJLESA and NJLECOA. In response, the New Jersey State Office of Employee Relations denied the request and took the position that it was not permitted to grant plaintiffs’ request because neither NJLESA nor NJLECOA were affiliated with any of the organizations delineated in N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.13 which are entitled to convention leave.

The complaint asserts N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.13 are arbitrarily exclusive in conferring the benefit of convention leave on certain fraternal organizations while excluding others, thereby violating certain provisions of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. Consequently, NJLESA and NJLECOA seek a declaration that N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.13 are unconstitutional or, alternatively, for an order directing the State of New Jersey to award convention leave to members of their organization. It will be interesting to see how this suit develops and how the state of New Jersey reacts to preserving this piece of legislation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the world of Public Employee Discipline as it pertains to New Jersey municipal police officers, we often turn to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147, or more commonly referred to as the “45 day rule", in ensuring that municipalities act within a reasonable time frame in bringing disciplinary charges against public safety officers. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Guidelines provide that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147, disciplinary charges alleging a violation of the agency’s rules and regulations must be filed within 45 days of the date the person filing the charge obtained sufficient information to file the charge. Specifically, N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 states that, a “Complaint charging a violation of the internal rules and regulations… shall be filed no later than the 45^th day after the date on which person filing the complaint obtained sufficient information to file the matter upon which the complaint is based.”

Many municipalities, police departments, and collective bargaining units have interpreted N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 as being applicable to all disciplinary charges and alleged misconduct whether the same violated internal rules, regulations, or procedures or in the alternative fell under misconduct as defined under Title 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code, or 2C criminal misconduct. However, the world of police discipline as we used to understanding it no longer exists. The Appellate division has clarified N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147.

In the case of McElwee v. Borough of Fieldsboro, A-1230-06T3, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division opined that N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147’s time limit for bringing disciplinary charges against an employee does not apply when the charges are based on misconduct grounded in title 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code, nor 2C of the New Jersey Criminal Code. Thus, municipalities may take their time in charging alleged misconduct and do not have to adhere to the “45 day” rule so long as the alleged misconduct is grounded in title 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code or 2C of the New Jersey Criminal Code.

It appears that the only way collective bargaining units can now broaden the scope of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 is to include a contractual clause in collective bargaining agreements that places time restraints on “all disciplinary charges”. The bottom line is that the protection New Jersey municipal police officers once enjoyed under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 is not as broadly defined as it used to be. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a non-published opinion, the Appellate Division for the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the Public Employment Relations Commission’s (PERC) decision to restrain binding arbitration of a grievance filed by PBA Local 105 for the payment of compensatory time off for work performed by essential employees during the 2006 governmental shutdown was lawful. In 2006, under a declaration of emergency, Governor Jon Corzine shut down the operation of the State of New Jersey due to the government’s failure to agree upon an operating budget. In the case of State of New Jersey Department of Corrections v. PBA Local 105, 32-2-0507, a ruling from PERC upholding a Scope of Negotiations petition filed by the State of New Jersey concerning the union’s inability to grieve essential employee compensation under N.J.A.C. 4A:6-2.5(d) was reviewed. Under New Jersey labor law, employees may only grieve alleged negotiated contractual violations that have not been previously legislated by the State of New Jersey. 

In this instance, the Appellate Court found that under N.J.A.C. 4A:6-2.5(d), the New Jersey Department of Personnel left no doubt that any compensation originating from a declaration of emergency is determined by statute under subsection 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Therefore the payment of compensatory time off during a state of emergency was preempted from negotiations and not grievable. The bottom line is if you are deemed an essential employee and you are called in to work during an emergency while all non-essential personnel are home enjoying the day off, you will get compensated at your regular rate of pay, and no more.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link